Randolph v. Trustees of the Cal. State University CA3

Filed 12/30/25 Randolph v. Trustees of the Cal. State University CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

TERESA RANDOLPH, C102901

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 19CV01226)

v.

TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Teresa Randolph sued her prior employer and several others (collectively, defendants) for claims relating to employment discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and termination of her employment. The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Randolph’s failure to bring the action to trial within the five-and-a-half- year statutory deadline under Code of Civil Procedure1 section 583.310 and Judicial

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

Council emergency rule 10 (Cal. Rules of Court, appen. I, emergency rule 10). Randolph appeals, asserting the trial court erred because defendants orally stipulated to an extension of the statutory deadline when they did not object to the trial court setting the trial date beyond the deadline. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND I Legal Background The statutory deadline to bring a case to trial is five years. (§ 583.310.) Judicial Council emergency rule 10 extended the five-year deadline by six months for cases filed on or before April 6, 2020. (Oswald v. Landmark Builders, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 240, 246.) If a case is not brought to trial within the five-year, six-month period, dismissal is mandatory unless a statutory exception applies. (§ 583.360.) One such exception is found in section 583.330, which provides that the parties may extend the statutory deadline either by written stipulation or “[b]y oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made.” Randolph relies on the oral agreement exception in this appeal. II Factual Background On April 19, 2019, Randolph sued defendants for a myriad of claims relating to her prior employment at California State University, Chico. The five-year, six-month statutory deadline for Randolph to bring the case to trial was October 19, 2024. At the March 27, 2024 case management conference, the trial court set the trial date for February 3, 2025. On November 1, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to bring the action to trial by the statutory deadline. Defendants argued that none of the exceptions to the statutory deadline applied because “Randolph unequivocally has never been ready to bring this matter to trial.” In a declaration filed in support of the motion, defendants’